Two Animated Films Nominated for Best Picture Oscar Two Animated Films Nominated for Best Picture Oscar 69 News media stories about the Oscars are cropping up all over and all of them are parroting the same factoid: Up is only the second time since the inception of the award that the Academy has nominated an animated film for Best Picture. (The first time was Beauty and the Beast in 1991.) What they should be writing is that today is a milestone day because two animated films were nominated for an Oscar: Up and Avatar. There is little doubt in the minds of both Brewmasters, Jerry Beck and Amid Amidi, that Avatar will eventually be recognized as an animated feature as more and more films are created using the constantly evolving performance capture animation technique. Within the industry, most already recognize the film as heavily animated, from top feature film animators who wonder why Avatar‘s animators are receiving so little credit for their work on the film to animation union rep Steve Hulett who stated that if, “Avatar isn’t halfway to three-quarters animation, I will eat my computer.” Most importantly, had this film been submitted to the Academy for consideration in the animated feature category, it would have qualified under the Academy’s own rules .

While James Cameron’s publicity machine may be unwilling to acknowledge the extent of animation used in creating Avatar, let us be the first to congratulate Mr. Cameron on his nomination for his groundbreaking piece of animation. PARTNER MESSAGE More Articles squirrel Wow. Up is only the SECOND animated film to get a Best Picture nomination?!?! :O Way to wake the Academy up! Despite all the hard work animators did on Avatar, I have to side with Cameron on this one: it is not an animated film. Keep in mind that we are talking about the film in the broadest sense- a film can be called ‘live-action’ but have tons and tons of animation effects work. Steve Segal I normally agree with Jerry. But I don’t agree that Avatar is an animated feature. It definitely benefits from animated effects, but the plot is carried by live actors, it’s just that we see a synthetic representation of them. I realize that the performance is heavily manipulated by animators, but the base performance is from an actor, and I consider that different from watching an actor on video and using that as a reference.

It may be a subtle difference, but when I watch an animated film like Up or The Princess and the Frog it’s clear to me that I’m watching an animation performance; watching the main characters in Avatar I see human motion. It is true that under the Academy rules it would have qualified for inclusion in the animated feature category. But I believe that to be a technicality. Bitter Animator Isn’t this the place that doesn’t consider Linklater’s movies to be ‘animation’? Truth be told, I don’t know how much actual animation is in Avatar but it’s being sold as motion capture. Is it not motion capture? Spike Why are people so afraid to admit that Avatar is an animated film? Isn’t it just animators being elitist? Randy V Well what’s it to be? I see Zemeckis movies lambasted on this site for not being animated, but the moment a mo-cap film gets nominations suddenly it IS an animated movie? Ward I know, it gets all cornfusing. Remember Happy Feet? Beowulf?

From Suite 101 in 2007: “The combination of Happy Feet’s win, and Beowulf’s confirmation in the category, has sealed the notion that motion capture qualifies as animation for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.” Mark Sheldon I realize the Academy has thier definition, but I personally don’t agree with it. The defining characteristic of animation is and always will be the performance by the artist. Avatar is no more animation than the Muppet Movie. It is essentially digital puppetry. I felt the same thing about Happy Feet. Just because it’s not live action doesn’t mean it is animation. That’s not to sat it wasn’t ground breaking but that ground is not shared by Pixar. I’ve never seen anyone at Cartoon Brew say Zemeckis’ stuff was not animation, just that it was lazy, crappy animation. Mac Up has been nominated for best picture?! That’s good to hear â€“ listening to the BBC news at lunch time most of the other films were mentioned apart from Up so I assumed the best reviewed film of the year had been ignored because it’s a cartoon. Glad to see I was wrong. FigmentJedi Avatar’s not an animated film.

Cameron says it isn’t animated, which just gives you a sign that he really doesn’t care about the medium and that mo-cap isn’t really true animation. All that movie was is just a CG tech demo with a flimsy Pocahontas plot. Besides, if he wins, it’ll inflate his ego to galaxy size. Jonathan “I got a bad feeling about this” I’m afraid Pete Docter’s gonna get skunked big time. As much as I like UP, I’m cynical about the academy. I can imagine him not getting best picture, and I’m betting “Fantastic Fox” will lure all the live action voters. It would be an absolute shame, since Docter lost to Shrek all those years ago. Bill Turner It is an interesting question. I just read an article that complained that Zoe Saldana was not nominated for Best Actress for her role. I think it would take a comparison of the raw motion capture footage with the final result to see how different they might be. But then, should Marge Champion have been nominated for Snow White? Grim Natwick had said they used maybe rotoscope drawing 1 and 101, but had to make up the rest themselves.

Or how about the actor used in Gulliver’s Travels which is more heavily rotoscoped? Or as someone mentioned, the actors in Linklater’s film. Certainly I saw things in Neytiri’s character that couldn’t possibly have been motion captured (ears and stuff). We are not going to answer the questions here, but it does make for good discussion! floyd pendershaft People who disregard Avatar as animation need to review their animation history. You may not like the fact that it is being awarded along side with Up, but Avatar is still animation. John Stuart Blackton is considered the father of American Animation, but many in this posting may not regard him as an animator as well. Cameron may be dissing animation as a marketing ploy. He probably considers animation to be a children’s medium. Many fans of Avatar would probably avoid the film if it was marketed as animation, but it is nevertheless animation. Chelsea Nick Cameron cracks me up. He was all into Ghost in the Shell and Neon Genesis Evangelion all of which being animated films and series. He even had plans on making a live action Evangelion feature.

Then he goes and steals from an animated film… *cough* Ferngully… makes a film in which 90 percent of the film is made in Maya (a CG ANIMATION program) but then refuse to give animation ANY credit. To quote his own character, “They’re just pissing on us without the courtesy of calling it rain.” someguy so by the definition a lot of people are giving as to why Avatar is NOT an animated film, then Bakshi’s version of Lord of the Rings is also, NOT an animated film. The performances were carried by live actors with animators merely “tracing” over them and adding supplemental effects. The same could be said of Snow White… or Cinderella… hell, let’s throw in almost any “classic” Disney movie ever made since, at some point, they used live reference to get a performance. Even Don Bluth movies or early Dreamworks films had some live reference. the simple fact is… there should be no distinction between either. They are MOVIES. the tools used to make them are simply different.

but to deny animators were involved at all is simply a slap in the face and really begs the question, “why do we allow this to continue?” If “Alvin & The Chipmunks” is an animated film, then Avatar is. Anne I am indifferent to “Up.” I didn’t feel connected to the characters, and I found the talking dogs really weird. Is anyone else in the world indifferent to Up, or am I the only one? I loved Secret of Kells, Mr. Fox, and Coraline…and I’d love to see the award go to any one of them. stikkbomber “If “Alvin & The Chipmunks” is an animated film, then Avatar is.” I agree, neither of them is. Johnno Avatar isn’t an animated film! Any animation in there is minimal in comparison to the characters who were all using what’s really advanced mo-cap called performance capture! Isn’t this why some were all up in arms over not calling Beowulf an animated film??? That’s because it largely isn’t! Any actual animation is no more than is used in any other live action film for robots or other creatures. The fact is that Avatar’s Na’vi aren’t animated.

Frankly The flight paths of the spaceships and banshees were probably mo-capped using hand nodels too and no doubt stuff like the wings. tails etc were animated afterwards overtop the performance capture. No different than any other live action sci-fi movie lik Star Wars or Lord of the Rings for example. Total surprise, but a very, very good one :) Congrats Pete Docter & the crew!! Chris S When there are only two categories, and something doesn’t really fit into either one, MAKE A NEW CATEGORY. Mo-cap is a unique blend of live action and animation, and as such should be recognized in it’s own category with it’s own set of guidelines when used to the extent that Avatar had, especially if the technique becomes more widely used. For Avatar, it will always be controversial since there was an extensive amount of both animation and live-action. It is however, pretty lame of Cameron to deny animation all together…learn to embrace. Sahra Brewmasters, please explain to us in technical detail your opinion why Avatar should be considered animated. Just because it looks animated? Under Academy rule, it does not qualify as being an animated film.

Under Academy rule, the definition of animation is any motion picture created through a frame-by-frame process. In other words, by artists manipulating and animating frames, one frame at a time. This is also the classical definition of animation you will find in any Basic Animation course. This definition includes rotoscope all the way through “Waking Life” – even though rotoscope involves filming live action actors, each frame is nevertheless broken down and painted by artists, one frame a time. Avatar is motion capture. Do not ever confuse mo-cap with rotoscope. Motion capture is not a frame-by-frame process. It is a live action process that is digitally manipulated in real time. This is a crucial distinction that strictly defines motion capture as a non-animated process. Mike Lucy Sahra: The inclusion of that line by the academy, “frame-by-frame” shows how outdated their definition of animation is. 3D animation is not created frame by frame, there are keys set and people manipulate graphs and curves. Under a literal interpretation of “frame-by-frame” then only drawn and stop-motion would qualify as “animated films.” I really don’t understand everyone’s problem understanding here… The academy has recognized all other mo-cap films as “animated films” so why is Avatar any different?

The main characters were animated. Personally, I think that mo-cap is not animation. I think that if a computer is making a majority of the artistic decisions then that is where the line is between mo-cap and rotoscoping. At least roto involves decisions made by a human and interpreted by their hand. Up is to Avatar as Snow White is to those Charles Schwab commercials Donald C. If people consider Ralph Bakshi’s rotoscoping to be animated, then I see no reason why not to consider Avatar as animated. Sahra Mike Lucy: You are incorrect. 3D animation is indeed considered a frame by frame process, because an animator is still working with and manipulating key frames. It is not a live action process. Wikipedia’s definition of computer animation: “Computer animation is essentially a digital successor to the art of stop motion animation of 3D models and frame-by-frame animation of 2D illustrations.” amid Sahra: I suggest reading about how the film was made before spreading further misinformation on the Brew. To claim that Avatar is “a live action process that is digitally manipulated in real time” is an inaccurate description of the process and diminishes the efforts of all the animators on the film who labored on it frame-by-frame.

Sahara: Since when has Wikipedia been a quotable source? Sam Sleiman “Animation is not a category. Otherwise, ‘Pearl Harbor’ would be slugging it out with ‘The Mummy Returns’ and ‘Driven.’ And as a general rule, animation that looks like cartoons is considered separately from animation that looks like special effects.” -Roger Ebert Erin Hee, anyone who thinks Avatar isn’t an animated film has been convinced by Cameron’s PR machine. Anyone familiar with mo-cap, who has worked in mo-cap, or knows people and talks with them who work in mo-cap knows it’s animation alright. Very much animation. The actor’s performances might provide raw material, but animators have to go in and add those human details that distinguish the characters from robots (caused by computer error or artistic license). Where isn’t there frame by frame manipulation? And if this doesn’t qualify as frame by frame manipulation, than what of the myriad of experimental animation that uses less animation by comparison? Lucky Jim The thing about “Avatar” is that Cameron isn’t aiming to create animated performances; he’s aiming to capture live-action performances augmented by digital prosthetics (there’s a reason why Stan Winston’s studio was involved).

The motion capture in the film is meant to be an evolution of the traditional make-up and prosthetics used to create creatures in sci-fi or horror movies. Rather than have the actors sit for hours in the make-up chair, Cameron can now create any alien he wants using an actor’s performance and digital make-up. Well, I know who I’m cheering for to win that Oscar. Avatar was amazing to look at, but if it’s awarded “Best Picture” then something isn’t right at the Academy… Mark Sheldon Erin. You may have convinced me to be more open minded on mo-cap. I enjoyed Avatar but never considered that animators are rounding out the performance. I’m not 100% conviced but I will certainly thinker about the artists envolved. I think the reason we as animationfans feel so passionately about mo-cap is the feeling that it takes animators out of the equation. And that there some corner office orgar chomping on a cigar and thinking “Now all I have to pay for is Will Smith and an xbox” Chris S Lucky Jim, I agree. I think that a digital enhancement of a live-action performance is very different than something that is fully animated, and different than something purely live-action.

That’s why there needs to be a distinction. It’s unfair to take credit away from the mo-cap actors and call it animation, and it’s unfair to take credit away from the animators and call it live-action. So until there is a category that gives fair recognition to both sides, there will always be conflict. …In someways, however, the mo-cap actor may be seen as an animator. The motion capture suit is an animation tool; it tells the digital rig how to move, in the same way an animator would, but in real time. So if the actor is doing most of the animation by means of recording their movement, they are technically animation artists. No less than the people who adjust the movements using a mouse instead of a body suit. Hal ERIN – I’d agree that films such as HAPPY FEET and A CHRISTMAS CAROL/POLAR EXPRESS are animated films through your definition of the MoCap process, and if AVATAR had no live action elements guiding the film as a whole it would be a different story.

However, incredible work of amazing animation team be damned, those blue cat people had to measure up to the humans around them, just like the dinosaurs in JURASSIC PARK, just like the Prawn in DISTRICT 9 and just like the Rancor in RETURN OF THE JEDI. They did not exist in a world defined solely by the rules of the animators – FINAL FANTASY THE SPIRITS WITHIN may have attempted “photo-realistic” digital actors, but the stylization of those characters created a hyper-real animated world that is self contained – just like a Pixar (or any CG) film, just like any 2d animated film, just like any stop motion film. AVATAR is not in the same ballpark. It is somewhere inbetween – it could never allow the same abstraction as something like THE CLONE WARS animated series in its CGI, or even Carl’s blocky look in UP, since the defined world FROM THE VERY FIRST shot when we are introduced to JAKE SULLY as a flesh and blood, real human being.

From that moment, Cameron drew a line in the sand and essentially said THIS IS MY CINEMATIC REALITY, and if the CGI does not match this then I have not succeeded in my vision on film. The MEANS TO THAT END does not trump the result – a live action film with a TON OF VISUAL EFFECTS WORK on all fronts. BREWMASTERS – if we give AVATAR the definition of an animated feature, do we not undermine the whole magic of the “animated world” – one in which we are freed, on all fronts, from the restraints of the very cinematic reality which Cameron has spent so much time battling to overcome? Look only to WALL-E’s brilliant “Captain’s Portraits” sequence – it is the moment that film confronted exactly this uncanny valley head on and engaged it, producing a brilliant series of images depicting our metamorphosis from human actor to virtual animated character. WALL-E is an animated film, despite the integration of live action, is it not? I’d say yes, on the grounds that the animated reality established its dominance in that one, brilliant shot. Dock Miles I think a brand-new term for such complete fusions as AVATAR is in order.

Live action and animation have been rising toward each other since Disney made Alice in Wonderland shorts. When they meet and blend so you can’t tell where one leaves off and the other begins, a fresh name has to apply. I think in the end, Avatar is going to end up being regarded as a hybrid feature, really. It seems like the proper middle road in such a sharply divided argument. Bugsmer I don’t consider the 1933 classic King Kong to be an animated movie, even though many of the superb special effects were done in stop motion. There were enough actors and sets to differentiate between the two. I don’t consider The Phantom Menace to be an animated movie, though a good portion of it was animated. Mary Poppins is a little different, but despite the animation in that and Song of the South, I consider them live action because both films featured real humans as the main characters and revolved around the characters’ real lives. Similarly, Avatar, which, notwithstanding the mo-cap performances themselves, uses a great deal of animation for the scenery and for some of the animals, and also for the graphic foundations of the characters and animals that become animated through mo-cap; is not a fully-animated movie.

It’s in a similar class to The Phantom Menace, only it looks a lot more realistic. James Cameron’s team have done wonders with digital technology, but they haven’t made a completely animated film. Thus, I don’t think that Avatar should be put in the same category as Snow White, but rather in the same category as Mary Poppins, since both are live action films. Trevor It’s even more important to note that Beauty and the Beasts nomination prompted the Best Animated Feature category. Up is the first to be nominated despite the Best Animation category. uggggggh, Avatar. What can I say that hasn’t already been said? Millians Unquestionably the great majority of the visuals in Avatar are the product of animation. The issue really is how much of it there needs to be for a film to be considered an animated feature. I don’t think Avatar reaches that level. The more intriguing debate for me is whether this is animation or visual effects. I can completely understand the consternation of all the animators involved in not having their contributions properly credited as character animation. Nick HAL- If anything Wall-E only proves my point.

There’s no way you could convince anyone that humans will evolve into caricatured stylizations, it was one of the reasons many audience members were offended by the film and hurt it. I mean in all honesty didn’t you find that weird when they first showed live action actors in the film, because I know a lot of people who did. Also you can’t say that an animated film isn’t constrained to some form of reality, unless it is a purely abstract film, which you can still do with live action. If in the Princess and the Frog the characters suddenly turn into weird masses of ooze and color people would just be confused and hate it because the way the characters are designed we expect them to be confined to some form of reality. The only time you can accept the character’s design changing is when the character is imagining something which falls into the world of the abstract. As for a “Easy quantifiable way out” how else are other things judged? How else do you judge the election that the awards are based on? With quantifiable numbers. Also the prop argument falls apart. Johnny Depp is not really Capt. Jack Sparrow he’s an actor that was made up to look the part.

He is a real tangible thing PRETENDING to be something else. He is NOT a drawing or a digital model being manipulated by an outside force. Just like a foam castle exists in reality but is being used as a PRETEND castle. And yes Hal I know the stone statues don’t really exist in New Zealand talking down to the person you’re arguing against doesn’t help your argument. Finally, not all Cinema is intangible, yes we are seeing projected images on a screen. Projected images that either came from something in the real world or were digitally created. Yes I may not be able to touch what’s on the screen but if the objects in it exist somewhere in the real world then cinema is tangible. And if there are more tangible things in the film it is live action. If there are less to none it is animation. Considering Avatar had more intangible artwork than Who Framed Roger Rabbit I think that makes it an animated film. AE Ok, I get it. The mocap in Avatar was heavily manipulated by animators, but for what I understand to replicate the actors perfomances to the most minute detail.

If were to draw a copy of every frame from say, Milt Kahl’s animation of Shere Khan, you could argue that I might be a very good draftsman, but nobody in their right mind would say I animated those scenes. Brian Brantley Something about this post, and all the others about Avatar really disturbs me. Who cares what Avatar is, it’s a hybrid! Why the need to classify it beyond that? Get over it. In the meantime, why don’t you go back and try to claim Jurassic Park, Sky Captain, 300, Sin City, Transformers, King Kong (CG New York/CG planes/CG ape/real woman – similar any to Avatar’s CG environment, CG characters, surrounding a real woman Grace in one scene?), The Matrix trilogy, and the Star Wars prequels? Or would you rather not want to claim the Star Wars prequels? Either way, it’s starting to sound weird. Like a serious overuse of the oppressed, “victim” card. There’s plenty of good business going around, and a lot of growing respect for animation.

Being so petty and smug about the credit for Avatar, and where it goes, just makes you guys look bad, and shines poorly on the animation industry in general. It seems like an awfully convenient time as well, to embrace and call one of your own, a film that has quickly taken spot as the highest grossing film of all time. Certainly I didn’t see this kind of enthusiasm for Beowulf when it came out, and that one had more animation in than Avatar! James Cameron rightfully deserves the credit, as he will continue to get at the Oscars. He can distribute that any way he likes. It’s unfortunate a lot of animation talent isn’t being called to the forefront to receive congratulations – but neither has it happened with the team of Gollum, Kong, or Davy Jones. There’s no difference here but the overwhelming success for Avatar, and the race to claim it for a cause. Jim hasn’t done anything wrong, he’s stated an opinion about his own film, and he has as much right to do so as anyone else. It really should change, so as the animation crews get more credit than they do right now, but that should happen naturally, not with one greedy swipe.

Whether it’s titled animation or not in an article or at the Oscars is irrelevant, it’s about the men who worked on it. At that point, they can call it whatever the hell they want. I don’t think saying “IT’S ANIMATION!” is helping them any. It’s just staking a claim for a nameless, faceless nerd cause. A self victory. Sorry for what could be considered an attack, but the posts on Brew have been relentless . And this is coming from an animation student. I think Avatar has the same animation/live action/ mocap ratio as the lord of the rings. And nobody thinks of that as an animated movie. Besides the orc audience. :) amid Brian: You asked why you didn’t see this kind of enthusiasm from us about Beowulf. It’s not about enthusiasm. Zemeckis made an animated film and didn’t claim otherwise. Cameron made a film with a ton of animation in it, so much so that it would qualify for an Oscar in the animated feature category, and he’s claiming that there’s no animation in the film. It’s an important issue that the highest-grossing film of all time is primarily animated and the director flatly denies the technique involved.

Peter H Personally my feeling is that Avatar is a “Special Effects” film rather than an Animated film, in the sense that the aim of the animators working on it was more the “illusion of reality” than style. In other words “technical animating” rather than “free animating”. This in no way impunes the work done by the animators, just that the goal is FX based rather than having the freedom to exploit the medium. The same could be said of Willis O’Brien and Ray Harryhausen. (Harryhausen’s Fairytale shorts are animated films – they don’t intend to make you believe they are photo-realistic live-action – but his features are FX animation.) Whether this distinction will hold is debatable, but it does seem to me valid at the present time. This morning’s Hollywood Reporter sez: “Oscars Snub ‘Avatar’s’ Motion Capture Actors” Although “Avatar” has blasted through boxoffice records and scored nine Academy Award noms, director James Cameron and producer Jon Landau are frustrated that the movie’s actors were ignored by Oscar voters. “People confuse what we have done with animation,” Cameron told THR at the PGA Awards. “It’s nothing like animation.

The creator here is the actor, not the unseen hand of an animator.” The Oscars snub is “a disappointment,” said Landau, “but I blame ourselves for not educating people in the right way.” Landau explained that they needed to make clear that the system they used represents a new way to use “motion capture” photography, or as Landau puts it, “emotion capture.” A key breakthrough in “Avatar” involves photographing facial features of the actors with a tiny camera suspended from a skull cap in front of the performer’s face that caught every twitch and muscle movement, all faithfully reproduced onscreen. “We made a commitment to our actors that what they would see up on the screen were their performances,” Landau said, “not somebody else’s interpretation of what their performance might or might not be.” The issue of what makes an actor an actor first surfaced when Andy Serkis did Gollum in “The Lord of the Rings,” but skepticism remains over whether it is the same as live-action acting.

“What an actor is doing when acting is not just looking like something but expressing something going on inside,” says James Lipton, host of Bravo’s “Inside the Actor’s Studio.” “I’m not sure that motion capture, while it captures the flicker of an eyebrow, the twist of a mouth, a gesture of a hand, equally captures emotion.” Critic Peter Rainer of the Christian Science Monitor tended to agree. “On one hand, it is a performance, but on the other, it is so aided by technology,” he said. “If I were ‘King of the World,’ I would create a separate category.” Film professor Richard Brown doesn’t agree. “This is very much the first film of the 21st century,” Brown said. “What we need to do is expand our concept of what the word actor means.

It’s unfair to take performances as good as these and not designate them as actors.” Joe Strike My opinion: If the movie’s creators see their work as an animated film, then it’s animated; if they consider the computer-generated characters in their film as a special effect (ie, creating realistic-looking aliens), then it’s not animation; looking at Zemeckis’ creepazoid zombies in Polar Express or Monster House – movies presented as animation is one thing – but looking at Cameron’s aliens and not for one second thinking you’re looking at computer-generated characters is something else entirely. Something that’s bugged me since the Academy disqualified interpolated rotoscoped animation (ie, Waking Life, Scanner Darkly) from Oscar consideration: then they should likewise disqualify motion capture, because both take live action footage and process it into animation. TheVok I would say there’s an awful lot of live action in Avatar. More than any other film I’d consider animated.

Steve Segal Amid, I’m loathe to take you on in a war of words, especially when the topic has been covered so exhaustively; but you said “Zemeckis made an animated film and didn’t claim otherwise.” But I found this quote from animatedfilms.suite101: “However, Zemeckis denies that the format even compares to traditional, hand-drawn animation or even CGI. “To call performance capture animation is a disservice to the great animators,” he said at the International Broadcasting Convention last September. However, despite Zemeckis’ statement, Paramount will still submit the film for consideration.”” Ultimately I agree with several of the latest posters that these works are more of a hybrid than anything else. captainmurphy Well there was a lot of live action in Mary Poppins, Song of the South, and Who Killed Roger Rabbit. And Sleeping Beauty relied a lot on actors movements. But people forget that most of the flora and fauna of avatar was moved about by hand rather than algorithms and motion capture. Not necessarily a lot, but more than your typical video game. But if Avatar is animated, so is Star Wars.

What you are seeing is an uncanny valley of categorization; the academy not knowing what to do, as long as a film may or might not get a chance at Oscar. Hal TOHOSCOPE – there’s an intersting article in the AVATAR issue of CINEFEX regarding the “key breakthrough in “Avatar” (involving) photographing facial features of the actors with a tiny camera suspended from a skull cap in front of the performer’s face that caught every twitch and muscle movement, all faithfully reproduced onscreen.” The camera created a fish eye effect, rendering roughly 90% of the facial recognition useless (as the face was stretched at the edges) and animators had to use that footage as well as supplementary reference footage from multiple angles to recreate the facial performance in the majority of the shots. I’d imagine the facial animation team high-fived when they realized the job security! Rick It is post like this that make me feel privileged to have the mind that I have. Avatar is NOT animation.

Brian Brantley 3:50 “The thing people need to understand is that is not – it’s an animation process, but it’s about taking 100% of what the actors did and preserving that into the final performance of the computer generated character. So this an actor driven process.” 4:25 “The animators have to be very good observers of human behavior. I mean, our system is semi- automated. you know, we put this rig on the actor’s face that records what they’re doing, records it very accurately. But still it takes the human in the loop, the animator, to see when somehow the technology is failing us in capturing that.” You guys seem to take offense every time he says “this is not an animated film”. It strikes me as incredibly over sensitive way. You’re also putting words in his mouth, that he never said. He just doesn’t share the opinion that this is an animated film. I don’t see what is wrong with that.

TheVok captainmurphy says: ” Well there was a lot of live action in Mary Poppins, Song of the South, and Who Killed Roger Rabbit.” True … and I certainly wouldn’t call Mary Poppins an animated film, would you? … nor Who FRAMED Roger Rabbit. Song of the South, maybe. I haven’t seen it since I was a child, so I don’t remember the live-to-animated ratio. It's a different world for animated Oscar nominees FacebookEmail Twitter Google+ LinkedIn Pinterest It's a different world for animated Oscar nominees In a ceremony that could be largely devoid of drama, the winner for animated feature is anyone's guess. Post to Facebook It's a different world for animated Oscar nominees In a ceremony that could be largely devoid of drama, the winner for animated feature is anyone's guess. Check out this story on USATODAY.com: CancelSend A link has been sent to your friend's email address. Posted! A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Join the Nation's Conversation To find out more about Facebook commenting please read the Conversation Guidelines and FAQs It's a different world for animated Oscar nominees Best Animated Feature Film Watch trailers, read reviews and learn the details about the 2013 Academy Awards Best Animated Feature Film nominees. Sponsored by The 85th Annual Academy Awards And the nominees are: The Pirates! Band of Misfits Wreck-It Ralph x Share Scottish princess Merida (Kelly Macdonald) riles her royal parents (Emma Thompson and Billy Connolly) with her non-traditional ways, but causes real problems when a fulfilled wish removes her from all traditions. Pixar / Walt Disney Pictures 'Brave' Plot: Scottish princess Merida (Kelly Macdonald) riles her royal parents (Emma Thompson and Billy Connolly) with her non-traditional ways, but causes real problems when a fulfilled wish removes her from all traditions. Cast: Kelly Macdonald, Billy Connolly, Emma Thompson Directors: Mark Andrews, Brenda Chapman, Steve Purcell x Share From writer-director Tim Burton comes the story of young Victor Frankenstien (Charlie Tahan) who resurrects his best friend: his dog Sparky.

Walt Disney Pictures 'Frankenweenie' Plot: From writer-director Tim Burton comes the story of young Victor Frankenstien (Charlie Tahan) who resurrects his best friend, his dog Sparky. Cast: Charlie Tahan, Winona Ryder, Catherine O'Hara, Martin Short, Martin Landau Director: Tim Burton Read USA TODAY's Review : ***1/2 out of four "Drawing on director Tim Burton's trademark fascination with the macabre, the tale is leavened with a touching sweetness and sharp wit." - Claudia Puig x Share He totally sees dead people. Young social outcast Norman (Smit-McPhee) finds his gift of dealing with zombies might just save his townspeople from having their brains eaten. Focus Features / Laika Entertainment 'ParaNorman' Plot: Young social outcast Norman finds his gift of dealing with zombies might just save his townspeople from having their brains eaten.

Cast: Kodi Smit-McPhee, Anna Kendrick, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Casey Affleck Director: Chris Butler, Sam Fell x Share Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) embarks on a worldwide quest in an attempt to defeat his rivals Black Bellamy and Cutlass Liz for the Pirate of the Year Award. Sony Pictures Animation / Aardman Animations 'The Pirates! Band of Misfits' Plot: Pirate Captain embarks on a worldwide quest in an attempt to defeat his rivals Black Bellamy and Cutlass Liz for the Pirate of the Year Award. Cast: Hugh Grant, Salma Hayek, Jeremy Piven Directors Peter Lord, Jeff Newitt Read USA TODAY's Review : ***1/2 out of four "The buccaneers in The Pirates! Band of Misfits may be far more ragtag than swashbuckling, but the film is sure-footed, witty and zany fun." - Claudia Puig x Share Wreck-It Ralph, who has played the bad guy in a classic arcade game for 30 years, longs to be a hero. He goes hopping from game to game in the arcade and inadvertently unleashes a powerful new enemy.

Walt Disney Animation Studios 'Wreck-It Ralph' Plot: Wreck-It Ralph, who has played the bad guy in a classic arcade game for 30 years, longs to be a hero. He goes hopping from game to game in the arcade and inadvertently unleashes a powerful new enemy. Cast: John C. Reilly, Jack McBrayer, Jane Lynch, Sarah Silverman Director: Rich Moore Read USA TODAY's Review : ***1/2 out of four "Wreck-It Ralph is a bouncy, hilarious and heart-warming, game-trotting trip. Unlike a sugar rush, it provides lasting enjoyment." - Claudia Puig Produced by John Elliot Brian Truitt, USA TODAY Published 6:16 p.m. ET Feb. 19, 2013 | Updated 11:10 a.m. ET Feb. 22, 2013 In an Oscar ceremony that could be largely devoid of drama, the winner for animated feature is anyone's guess. 'Wreck-It Ralph,' featuring the voice acting talents of John C. Reilly and Jack McBrayer, is one of three Disney pictures nominated for best animated feature film.

(Photo: Disney) Story Highlights The Oscar for animated feature film was first presented in 2002 Pixar has won six of the 11 Oscars given out in the category since its inception Three of the 2013 nominees ('Wreck-it,' 'Frankenweenie,' 'Brave') are products of Disney's studios In a year when drama seems to be draining out of a few top Oscar races — thanks, Argo and Mr. Lincoln — an underdog category is picking up the slack and poking its once-cartoonish snout into the adults' business. Animated feature films, having shed some of their slapstick reputation by adopting more sophisticated themes and technology and a keener competitive spirit, are creating compelling storylines for Sunday night's Academy Awards (ABC, 8:30 ET/5:30 PT). AWARDS NOW: Enjoy USA TODAY's full awards season coverage Put a lid on the sufferin' succotash antics of yesteryear. Instead, focus on the animated feature film category and see whether director Tim Burton — a revered presence in Hollywood's live-action world — will win his first-ever statuette, for his pet project Frankenweenie.

Or, will Pixar Studios pick up its seventh award, for Brave, which features its first-ever female protagonist, the headstrong redheaded archer Merida? Could film academy voters actually prove themselves to be hip by anointing Disney's video-game-centered Wreck-It Ralph? Looks like the stakes are getting more serious, even as animators still chase the brass ring of best picture as well as the respect of their live-action peers. "Animation has always been considered the kids' table of film," says Brave director Mark Andrews. "I'm kind of torn. I love that it has its own category, but I think we can go up against live-action. Why is animation considered less?" The stereotype that animation is all about talking animals is blown up by this year's five nominees, chosen from a field of 21 eligible films. They tackle heady material such as life and death — Burton'sFrankenweenie is a stop-motion ode to the friendship between a boy and his dog, who lives again after being electrified, Frankenstein-style. Brave finds Merida seeking freedom from her royal parents but also tackling a family curse.

ParaNorman is a John Hughes-esque tale of a bunch of kids who have to save their town from the undead, while Wreck-It Ralph is the redemptive story of a video-game bad guy journeying to find his inner hero. There is room for some lightheartedness, however, in the form of the very British The Pirates! Band of Misfits, about a buccaneer striving to be Pirate of the Year. Pirates! director Peter Lord, for one, is excited about having any presence at the Oscars, which he considers "the high table of filmmaking." Animation having its own Oscar is "the biggest thing in this business," says Lord, co-founder of Aardman Animations and Oscar winner for 2005'sWallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. "I've received more e-mails and tweets and Facebook likes and stuff around the nomination than around the release of the movie.

It has a huge, huge impact on people." While Argo seems to be running away with the award for best picture, the animation category — introduced at the 2002 ceremony, which saw Shrek take home the Oscar — has no clear front-runner, says Scott Feinberg, awards blogger for The Hollywood Reporter. Academy voters he has talked to are most enthusiastic about either Ralph or ParaNorman. "Ralph is the most fun of the group, and with all other things being relatively equal, that may be the difference," Feinberg says. However, while Ralph won a Critics' Choice Award and an Annie Award for best feature, Brave nabbed a Golden Globe and a prize from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts. But don't forget about the iconic director in the mix, says Tom O'Neil of GoldDerby.com. "Tim Burton's way overdue for an Oscar, and you might think here's the perfect opportunity for voters to reward him." Burton, who was nominated for his 2005 stop-motion horror musical Corpse Bride, remembers the days before the animated Academy Award existed.

When he was a Disney animator in the early 1980s, gone were the decades before of Walt Disney and his "Nine Old Men" crew rolling out classic after classic like Bambi, Dumbo and Peter Pan. During his stint, animation "was a dead medium." "You recognize there was always a lot of talented people waiting for the opportunity to do it and it finally came. It surprised me more back then at how dormant it was for a while," Burton says. The Little Mermaid in 1989, though, kicked off a resurgence for the company that two years later saw Beauty and the Beast garner the first-ever best-picture nod for an animated film. That, plus the coming of Pixar Studios in 1995 with Toy Story and a slate of well-made movies that entertained as well as tugged at the heartstrings, made it impossible for the academy to continue to ignore animation.

Lord jokes that he's still annoyed that the first Oscar for animated feature was given out the year after Aardman's popular Chicken Run — "I feel kind of cheated in a way," he says with a laugh — but his studio, in addition to the likes of DreamWorks, Laika (which did the stop-motion Coraline and ParaNorman) and others, stepped up everybody's game. "That's why I was very happy to get a nomination this year," Lord says. Adds Rich Moore, director of Wreck-It Ralph: "I look at what my colleagues are doing, and it makes me want to be a better filmmaker. It makes me want to be the best I can be." And it seems Disney is coming around yet again. Frankenweenie and Ralph lead the way in the company's new mind-set, which gives the reins to filmmakers to let them make the movie they want and not make a "Disney movie," Moore says. "To be helming a film that could potentially bring the award to Disney, which has never won, is profoundly humbling.

Disney is a place that I've always rooted for, and I think the audience does also because we have a deep, deep love for what that means." While Disney merged with Pixar in 2006, the latter is still an autonomous unit and one that can't rest on its laurels. "We're not the only game in town anymore, which is good for us because now we have to kick it up and find that next new thing or where can we push our innovation. We know everybody else will follow," says Andrews, who has been with Pixar for 12 years and has worked on a couple of Oscar winners, as head of story on The Incredibles and story supervisor with Ratatouille. That also means looking into possibly broadening the subject matter and moving past family-friendly material, he adds. "I would hate for some other studio to come out with the first PG-13 film that gets the best-picture nomination in live action and it's not us." Before he made his mark in Hollywood with Pee-wee's Big Adventure, Batman and Edward Scissorhands, Burton created his original live-action Frankenweenie short in 1984 while he was still at Disney.

Live action is a frame-by-frame process, too, yet there's a connection Burton has to animation that he doesn't get otherwise. "It's the tactile — people making the props and the puppets that are works of art in themselves and the skeletons and the movement you can get out of crude things that are amazing," Burton says. "Seeing inanimate objects coming to life goes back to Frankenstein or Pinocchio. There's something magical about the process of that in itself. It does make it a bit more special." Andrews, who co-wrote John Carter of Mars with fellow Pixar vet Andrew Stanton and helped with directing duties, says both mediums call for the same artistic skills, although there is a big time commitment involved with animation. A live-action movie can finish principal photography in a matter of weeks — animated films often take years to complete. ParaNorman writer and director Chris Butler can vouch for that: "You work on one of these things for four or five years. If it's just for an award at the end, you're probably wasting your time," he says.

Only three animated films have been nominated for Oscar's best picture: In addition to Beauty and the Beast, the Pixar films Up and Toy Story 3 both benefited from the recent expanded fields. There are still purists in the academy who actively ignore animated films because they just don't belong in the same category as a Lincoln or Silver Linings Playbook, Feinberg says. "I've literally heard voters use the word 'cartoon' dismissively. "They just have in their minds a certain idea of what a best picture is. When it looked like animated movies were getting to the point where they might start cracking into that category, those who did not like that wanted to give them their own award as well," Feinberg says. Adds Butler: "I do think a lot of people see animation as some colorful babysitting device rather than just a movie. They talk about it like it's its own thing. It shouldn't be. You should be able to use animation to tell any story." But the academy has responded positively to Pixar's use of "pioneering technologies while never forgetting to include big old-fashioned heart," O'Neil says.

"Up and Toy Story 3, those movies had those old geezer Oscar voters weeping in their seats and discovering their old vulnerable selves." Wins by Rango, Wall-E and Up in recent animated races also have shown a certain turning of the corner, he adds. Animation is "not just for kids — it's for lizards, it's for robots and it's for old people." Lord and Andrews both feel that an animated movie will one day win a best-picture honor. "I know why it's unlikely, because Hollywood loves their stars and they love their stars to be visual as well as audible, and they love to have their stars on the red carpet,'' says Lord. "But in terms of smart filmmaking, I can very well imagine it." And Andrews doesn't even think it will take a long time for it to happen. "As soon as animation gets out of this G-rated funk and starts doing some fast-court press on bigger social issues and dramatic stories, it will arrive," he says. "We're not just at the kids' table.

We can actually, using this medium, talk about things that are happening in the world and have unique insights." 56 CONNECT TWEET LINKEDIN COMMENTEMAILMORE Read or Share this story: NEVER MISS OUT Life Be a pop culture maven. Get the news, reviews and the juiciest celebrity stories that keep you in the know, Monday-Friday. OSCARS: Time For A Toon To Take Best Picture | Deadline OSCARS: Time For A Toon To Take Best Picture When the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences created an animated feature category back in 2001, it was an official nod to the fact that the genre has evolved into a true art form. Before the category’s existence, it was a rare feat for a toon to earn a best picture nomination, which happened just once, in 1992, with Beauty And The Beast. The fact that Up and Toy Story 3 recently managed to get best picture and best animated feature noms after the animated category was created and the top category was enlarged shows just how much Academy voters love and respect these films. Yet despite this progress, no animated film has turned a best pic nom into a win.

But times are changing, and it is now conceivable that an animated film could take home a best picture statuette in the next decade. The universal appeal of toons—proven by the enviable worldwide box office a majority of them earn—coupled with an emerging generation that blurs the assumed boundaries between live action and line drawings, bodes well for this prospect. Related: ‘The Croods’ Creative Team Tells How They Pulled Off A Big Win For Dreamworks Animation (Video) “I certainly think it’s possible,” DreamWorks Animation chief Jeffrey Katzenberg says. One of the insurmountable architects of the animation resurrection, Katzenberg cut straight to the creative heart of the matter. “The reason I think it’s possible is that some of the best storytelling and filmmaking in Hollywood today is in the animation genre.” The variety and scope of the films that earned animated feature Oscar noms this year— The Croods , Despicable Me 2 , Ernest & Celestine , Frozen and maestro Hayao Miyazaki’s swan song The Wind Rises —proves the DWA boss’ point. Not only has animation seen stunning advances in technology and technique since Beauty And The Beast, it has become a truly global genre.

Related: OSCARS: Hayao Miyazaki’s ‘The Wind Rises’ Clip One just need look at the career of Miyazaki, whose work has been nominated several times in non-animated categories at film fests and international film academy awards (Spirited Away won best pic at the 2002 Berlin fest). It’s a far cry from the early days when 1940’s envelope-pushing Fantasia was pilloried and praised for being either too highbrow, too adult, or, as Time magazine put it, “stranger and more wonderful than any of Hollywood’s (premieres).” Today take the ground breaking Fantasia and the legacy of Walt Disney plus the determination of his nephew Roy to keep the animation department open at the studio in the 80s and the renaissance that followed and a dash of unconventional wit and wisdom of The Simpsons.

Add to that the force of nature known as John Lasseter and Pixar, the leaps forward in not just tech but technique, the critically and financially successful Shrek franchise, some Steven Spielberg and Roger Rabbit, the universal charm of Finding Nemo, a plethora of voice-over talent, a slice of Waltz With Bashir (the only animated film nominated for a foreign language Oscar), then throw in some Miyazaki, artful use of 3D and of course 2008’s game changing WALL-E and you have a truly global genre that is putting out some of the best films today. “Look, you’ve got (Chris) Meledandri, Disney, DWA all knocking it out of the park with top notch talent and crossover appeal,” one studio producer told me. “People love these movies. My kids love these movies. My parents love these movies. I love these movies.” Now take the love and do the math. In 1992, Disney’s Beauty And The Beast became the first animated film to get a Best Picture nomination.

Though overlooked five years ago, it is pretty much universally agreed now and then that the staggering and poignant WALL-E should have been a contender in a very strong year that saw Slumdog Millionaire ultimately win. Since the Academy enlarged the Best Picture category to a potential 10 films in 2009, two more animated features have graduated to the big prize league. While neither Up nor Toy Story 3 won Best Picture, both did win the Best Animated Feature for which they were respectively simultaneously nominated in 2010 and 2011. Like the Best Picture, all 6,028 Academy members can vote for the Best Animated Feature and obviously some are voting for the same film in both categories. So already probability theory is in play. Then consider the fact that over the next decade, as new members are added, the current Academy members’ average age of 62 will start to fall. “There’s a new generation growing in numbers and they are much more comfortable with the digital landscape and dimensions of modern movies,” says one Academy insider. “They don’t discriminate about genre the way some older members still do,” he added Also, the populist factor is a huge reason why Academy members should be paying attention right now.

When the little-seen Hurt Locker took best picture back in 2010, it caused a ripple of criticism that the Academy was too elitist. (Plus, there’s always the concern that a year in which low-earning films are nominated for best picture equates to low viewership numbers for the telecast.) With animated features, unlike teenage boy-centric blockbusters or lofty, “Oscar-y” fare, there is something for everyone, as the box office often reflects. That’s real money—and it’s coming from a big, all-inclusive audience in which all the studios are investing. Both Despicable Me 2 and Frozen have taken in close to $1 billion worldwide, while The Croods has earned almost $600 million globally. No film can tally numbers like that without transcending genres and having mass appeal. Animation’s ability to cross borders and overcome language barriers is aided by bringing specific talent onboard to give the films a local flavor. Look at the Oscar-nominated Ernest & Celestine. In its native France, the pic from Triplets of Belleville producer Didier Brunner is voiced by Lambert Wilson of Matrix fame and Pauline Brunner.

However, for the recently released stateside English version, Oscar-caliber talent such as Forest Whitaker, Lauren Bacall, Paul Giamatti and William H. Macy handled vocal duties. Building on the success of the first film and voiced by local talent, Kung Fu Panda 2 smashed Chinese weekend box office records when it premiered in the early summer of 2011. The bottom line is that animated features are not just for kids and their dragged-along parents anymore. Yes, about half of the audience falls into that category, but the remaining half is a bricolage of kidless fans that come of their own free will. In fact, the most recent animated release, Warner Bros.’ The LEGO Movie , boasts the second-highest February debut— with a $69 million opening weekend—because of its cross-generational, cross-demographic appeal. “I love the films that push to be more exciting and complex and tell really rich stories,” says Frozen director Jennifer Lee. “I think that all of us in animation at all the studios are pushing ourselves to surprise the audience.

We are doing some of the most fearless things in animation, and the world is beginning to see that.” That’s why an animated feature will win best picture in the next decade. The films are getting better all the time; they are both creative and popular; and they are inclusive. However, the intriguing world of Academy predictions is strewn with failures and trip-wire mines, so who knows what 10 years will bring? Perhaps the words of Sir Joshua Reynolds, the 18th-century painter and co-founder of the Royal Academy, bear consideration here. A great painting should have the “profound humanism, mellifluity of utterance, the aptness of language, measure and imagery, the grandeur of scale, and moral discourse of the most exalted poetry and poetic dramas.” Sounds like many an animated film of late. Sounds like a best picture in the making, too. A variation of this report appeared in the February 19 edition of Awardsline.

Academy Awards, USA (1992) Academy Awards, USA Date: March 30 1992 Location: Los Angeles, California, USA Awards for 1992 The Silence of the Lambs became the third film in Academy history to win the "Big Five" Academy Awards for producing, directing, acting, and screenwriting following It Happened One Night and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest . NOMINEES Best Actor in a Leading Role WINNER Best Actress in a Leading Role WINNER Best Actor in a Supporting Role WINNER Best Actress in a Supporting Role WINNER Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen WINNER Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published WINNER Best Effects, Sound Effects Editing WINNER For the song "Beauty and the Beast". Howard Ashman's nomination and award were posthumous. His partner Bill Lauch accepted the award on his behalf. NOMINEES For the song "Be Our Guest". Howard Ashman's nomination was posthumous. For the song "When You're Alone".

Best Music, Original Score Best Short Film, Live Action WINNER Satyajit Ray For his rare mastery of the art of motion pictures and for his profound humanitarian outlook, which has had an indelible influence on filmmakers and audiences throughout the world. - Satyajit Ray was not present at the awards ceremony. His acceptance speech was pre-recorded in Calcutta. Medal of Commendation For outstanding service and dedication in upholding the high standards of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences. Pete Comandini (YCM Laboratories), Richard Dayton (YCM Laboratories), Donald Hagans (YCM Laboratories), Richard T. Ryan (YCM Laboratories) For the creation and development of a motion picture film restoration process using liquid gate and registration correction on a contact printer. Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award WINNER The crew of the orbiting space shuttle Atlantis (STS-45 participated in the presentation of the Thalberg Award to George Lucas. An Oscar statuette was aboard the shuttle to commemorate the event. Academy Award of Merit WINNERS Iain Neil, Albert K.

Saiki (Panavision, Inc.) For the optical design (Neil), the mechanical design (Saiki) and the concept and development (Panavision) of the Primo Zoom Lens for 35m cinematography. Georg Thoma, Heinz Feierlein (Engineering department of Sachtler AG) For the design (Thoma) and the development (Feierlein/Sachtler) for a range of fluid tripod heads. Harry J. Baker For the design and development of the first full fluid-action tripod head with adjustable degrees of viscous drag. Guido Cartoni For his pioneer work in developing the technology to achieve selectable and repeatable viscous drag modules in fluid tripod heads. Ray Feeney , Richard Keeney, Richard J. Lundell For the software development and adaptation of the Solitaire Film Recorder that provides a flexible, cost-effective film recording system. For the development of the Henson Performance Control System. Mario Celso For his pioneering work in the design, development and manufacture of equipment for carbon arc and xenon power supplies and igniters in motion picture projection. For the design and development of the "CAPS" production system for film animation.

George Worrall Timeline of Animated Film History Timeline of Animated Film History Timeline of Animated Film History The Evolution of Animated Film By David Nusair Updated July 04, 2016. Though one could be forgiven for assuming that the animation revolution began in 1937 with the release of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs , the genre has actually existed almost as long as its live-action counterpart. This timeline charts animation's humble beginnings all the way through to its pervasive use within the realm of special effects: 1906 J. Stuart Blackton's Humorous Phases of Funny Faces is released. It is a three-minute short in which Blackton creates animating drawings of faces and people against a plain blackboard. 1908 The first short comprised solely of animated images, Emile Cohl's Fantasmagorie, receives its premiere in Paris. 1908 Humpty Dumpty Circus marks the first use of stop-motion animation on film. 1914 Earl Hurd invents the process of cel animation, which would revolutionize and dominate the industry for much of the 20th century.

1914 Gertie the Dinosaur is widely considered the first animated short to feature a distinguishable character, as cartoonist and animator Winsor McCay brings a walking, dancing dinosaur to life. continue reading below our video Great Singers Gone too Soon 1917 The first feature-length animated film, Quirino Cristiani's El apostol, is released. Unfortunately, he only known copy was destroyed in a fire. 1919 Felix the Cat makes his debut and becomes the first famous animated cartoon character. 1920 The first color cartoon, John Randolph Bray's The Debut of Thomas Cat, is released. 1922 Walt Disney animates his first animated short, Little Red Riding Hood. Though initially thought lost, a copy was found and restored in 1998. 1928 Mickey Mouse makes his debut. Though the first Mickey Mouse cartoon is technically the six-minute short Plane Crazy, the first Mickey Mouse short to be distributed is Steamboat Willie, which is also the first Disney cartoon with synchronized sound. 1929 Disney's iconic line of animated shorts, Silly Symphonies, kicks off its prolific run with The Skeleton Dance.

1930 Betty Boop debuts as a woman/dog hybrid in the short Dizzy Dishes. 1930 Warner Bros. Looney Tunes makes its debut with Sinkin' in the Bathtub. 1931 Quirino Cristiani's Peludopolis, which tells the story of a military coup against a corrupt president, boasts the first instance of sound within a feature-length animated film. There are no surviving copies of the movie in existence. 1932 The first full-color, three-strip Technicolor animated short, Flowers and Trees, is released. The film wins Disney the first-everAcademy Award for Animated Short Film 1933 King Kong, which features several stop-motion animated characters, is released. 1933 After starring in an extremely successful comic strip, Popeye makes his cartoon debut alongside Betty Boop in the seven-minute short Popeye the Sailor. 1933 Ub Iwerks invents the multiplane camera, which allows animators to create a three-dimensional effect within two-dimensional cartoons. 1935 The Russian film The New Gulliver becomes the first full-length feature to employ stop-motion animation for the bulk of its running time.

1937 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Walt Disney's first full-length animated feature and the first such production to emerge out of the United States, is released. It becomes a huge box office success and Disney was awarded an Honorary Academy Award for the achievement. 1938 Bugs Bunny makes his debut in Porky's Hare Hunt, though the character wasn't named until 1941. 1940 Tom the cat launches his unending pursuit of Jerry the mouse in the Oscar-nominated short Puss Gets the Boot. 1940 Woody Woodpecker arrives on the scene with a small role in the Andy Panda cartoon Knock, Knock. 1941 The first full-length animated musical, Mr. Bug Goes to Town, is released. 1946 Disney's first live-action film, Song of the South, is released and boasts several animated interludes. Because of its depiction of the African-American character Uncle Remus, the film has never been released on home media in the United States. 1949 Prolific stop-motion animator Ray Harryhausen makes his debut with the creation of the title character in Mighty Joe Young.

1972 Ralph Bakshi's Fritz the Cat is released as the first X-rated animated feature in cinematic history. 1973 Computer-generated images are used for the very first time in a brief shot within Westworld. 1975 Revolutionary special-effects company Industrial Light & Magic is founded by George Lucas. 1982 Tron marks the first time that computer-generated images are used extensively in a film. 1986 Pixar's first short, Luxo Jr., is released. It is the first computer-animated short to receive an Academy Award nomination. 1991 Beauty and the Beast becomes the first fully animated film to receive an Oscar nomination for Best Picture. 1993 Jurassic Park becomes the first live-action film to feature photorealistic computer-animated creatures. 1995 The first computer-animated film, Toy Story , is released to theaters. The achievement is honored with a Special Achievement Academy Award . 1999 Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace marks the first film to use computer-generated imagery extensively and pervasively, in terms of its sets, special effects, and supporting characters. 2002 The Academy creates a Best Animated Feature category, with Shrek the first movie to win the Oscar.

2002 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers features the first photorealistic motion captured character for a film, with Andy Serkis portraying Gollum. 2004 The Polar Express becomes the first fully-animated film to use motion capture technology to render all of its characters. 2005 Chicken Little becomes the first computer animated film to be released in 3D. 2009 James Cameron's groundbreaking Avatar is the first film to feature a fully CG 3D photorealistic world,

Question: What was the first animated film to be nominated for a best picture Oscar?
Answer: Beauty and the Beast